I also exit the discussion, since I have come to question whether discussion boards are used for discussion at all…
Haha 
he said land can’t be owned because it cannot be a product of labor. I called his bluff, explaining a kind of land, man-made islands, that are only ever a product of labor, thus destroying his assertion utterly, and no response.
How will you live then? If owning property means the right to dispose of something and exclude all others from the use of that property, what exactly do you think is happening when you eat a sandwich or drink some water?
If you have no right to property then you have no right to sequester food and water from the rest of humanity inside your stomach.
And the reason we have a right to land is because without the right to land you cannot obtain the food or the water.
This is what I’m talking about. You are not thinking about the real world implications of your philosophical musings. You have to actually touch back with reality lest you go off on a trail through the woods and get lost.
If you don’t own yourself you would not be able to control yourself. The very fact that you and no one but you were able to type out that post proves that you own yourself.
And if you cannot own property then you cannot feed yourself either.
Try again.
I exit the discussion, being that I have come to doubt whether the concept of (right to) property is justified at all.
Hah! Called that one.
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/geolibertarianism/24288/4
How will you live then? If owning property means the right to dispose of something and exclude all others from the use of that property, what exactly do you think is happening when you eat a sandwich or drink some water?
You falsly presuppose that only property gives you a right to exclusive use of something.
If you don’t own yourself you would not be able to control yourself.
Same false presupposition.
Papirius, the right to use something exclusively is a social convention. We call it “property.” what exactly are you unsure of?
the right to use something exclusively is a social convention.
Argumentation ethics shows is to be an ethical axiom. It just mistakenly identifies it as a property right.
Ethics presuppose property rights. Without property rights then how can you determine if something has been stolen for instance?
Ethics presuppose right to exclusive use, and that doesn’t imply property, but possession.
Possession doesn’t necessarily imply the exclusive right of use either. If Bob steals something, Bob clearly now has possession of the object, it doesn’t mean that he has the legit exclusive right to use it though.
Possession right is the right to deny use of something because you are using it, i.e. it is a right to exclusive use. If Bob steals something means that the he took something that was being used without consent of that user.
Some of us use the term “possession” in a descriptive way, rather than a normative way. But I think I can adopt your semantics here.
Would you say that, if one has the right to “use” something (ignoring for the moment what’s meant by “use”), would you also say that one then has the right to the fruits of that “use”? And would you say that one also has the right to give up his right to “use” the thing in question?
Finally, I’d appreciate a response to this post.
Some of us use the term “possession” in a descriptive way, rather than a normative way. But I think I can adopt your semantics here.
I’d say it’s actually both in this sense, in which Proudhon and Tucker used it.
Would you say that, if one has the right to “use” something, would you also say that one then has the right to the fruits of that “use”?
What right? To property? I now don’t see how is property justified to come into existence in the first place. Seems only by a social contract. I’ll have to read and contemplate some more on Lockean “labor-mixing” and “improved-value” theories.
(ignoring for the moment what’s meant by “use”)
I’ve allready told you that use is physical, it has to do with the purpose of the item, e.g. food is used by eating, you are not using by watching it.
And would you say that one also has the right to give up his right to “use” the thing in question?
You stop using it, you abandon it, and thus everyone else has the right to use it.
So once again you’re mixing descriptivity and normativity together? Apparently Proudhon and Tucker were, too.
As I see it, “right to the fruit(s) of use” means that, if anything new develops from your use of something, you also have the right to use the new thing(s). The term seems to have its roots (no pun intended) in agriculture, as can be seen by the word “fruit” itself. So having the right to the fruits of using an area of farmland would mean having the right to use the crops that you grow on it. If the right to use is the base case of ownership, then the right to the fruit(s) of use is the inductive step.
Another example is where, if you have the right to the fruit(s) of use over some raw materials, that means you have the right to use what you fashion those raw materials into.
So you’re saying that, if I have bread in my refrigerator that I’m not currently eating, I’m therefore not using it, and therefore everyone else is entitled to take it out of my refrigerator so he can eat it?
Aside from that, do you think there’s a way to objectively determine the purpose(s) of a given item? You seem to believe that the Aristotelian notion of the “final cause” or telos holds for everything.
Are you talking about in the state of nature, or under a social contract, or both?
So once again you’re mixing descriptivity and normativity together?
I’m going around it, like Hoppe did. To violate my exclusive use of my body is not wrong because of the fact that only I can use my body, but because it an a priori norm of argumentation to respect other people’s exclusive use of their bodies, and because argumentation is the only way of justifying anything, it follows that “people have right to exclusive use of their bodies” is an ethical axiom.
[u]As I see it, “right to the fruit(s) of use” means that, if anything new develops from your use of something, you also have the right to use the new thing(s). The term seems to have its roots (no pun intended) in agriculture, as can be seen by the word “fruit” itself. So having the right to the fruits of using an area of farmland would mean having the right to use the crops that you grow on it. If the right to use is the base case of ownership, then the right to the fruit(s) of use is the inductive step.
Another example is where, if you have the right to the fruit(s) of use over some raw materials, that means you have the right to use what you fashion those raw materials into.[/u]
Which is all redundant. You have the right to use anything that is not used (assuming that there’s no property in the picture).
So you’re saying that, if I have bread in my refrigerator that I’m not currently eating, I’m therefore not using it, and therefore everyone else is entitled to take it out of my refrigerator so he can eat it?
You’re using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I’m currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.
Aside from that, do you think there’s a way to objectively determine the purpose(s) of a given item? You seem to believe that the Aristotelian notion of the “final cause” or telos holds for everything.
Are you talking about in the state of nature, or under a social contract, or both?
In the state of nature. I thought that argumentation ethics show that property rights exist in state of nature, but I have realized that it acctually show that possession rights exist in state of nature, as I said, I need to think a bit more about “labor-mixing” and “added-value” theories to see and come to a conclusion if property is justified in the state of nature, or just as a mere societal construct.
There’s absolutely no way of going around the is-ought problem. Even though both descriptive and normative positions can be argued logically, they constitute entirely orthogonal kinds of argument. While arguments can only continue so long as their participants respect each other’s exclusive uses of their bodies - at least with respect to the arguments at hand - that doesn’t mean that one is a priori obligated to either respect anyone else’s exclusive use of his body at any/all time(s) or to ever engage in an argument with anyone.
That’s your position, not mine. Clearly I’m assuming there’s property in the picture.
Justified according to which premises?
You didn’t answer my question about the Aristotelian notion of telos.
So you’d have no problem per se with a social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property? I just want to be clear on this.
By “the state of nature”, do you mean “in the absence of any social relations whatsoever”? Or what? Sorry but I just realized that I don’t quite understand what you mean by that term after all.
You’re using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I’m currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.
So a meal kept in the refrigerator where one works is fair game?
that doesn’t mean that one is a priori obligated to either respect anyone else’s exclusive use of his body at any/all time(s) or to ever engage in an argument with anyone.
It means it is unjustifiable not to. Beause in order to justify anything you have to do it by argumentation, and respecting people’s exclusive use of their bodies is an a priori norm of argumentation. If I attack you, I’ve just attacked you, I haven’t proven that it’s justified; trying to argue and justify not respecting other people’s exclusive use of their bodies is like trying to argue and justify that conversations don’t exist- a performative contradiction, meaning that it’s opposite (respecting people’s right to exclusive use of their bodies; admiting that conversations exist) is an axiom. Man, an anti-propertarian has to explain Hoppe to a Propertarian.
Justified according to which premises?
Any rationalist.
You didn’t answer my question about the Aristotelian notion of telos.
Don’t know.
So you’d have no problem per se with a social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property? I just want to be clear on this.
Being were talkin about a social contract, not about rationally proving something right or wrong, I do have a problem with any capitalism, as do pretty much all people who are not capitalists.
By “the state of nature”, do you mean “in the absence of any social relations whatsoever”?
Property existing in a state of nature means that existence of property is a fact proved by rational argument. Property in a social contract is a preference, just a convention among people.
So a meal kept in the refrigerator where one works is fair game?
Yep. It’s ironic that that’s one of the few things I disagreed with Rousseau (there being no property in state of nature), thought that Locke had the rational view, and I was thrilled to find Hoppes proof of it, it just turned out it wasn’t a proof.
So its justifiable for me to track down a given individual, shoot him, and eat him, as he obviously wasnt using the nutritionally rich muscles and organs inside his skin as long as he isnt physically active, right? After all, once I start using his body (signified by the tangible bullets I put inside him) then he surely wont be using it to challenge my claim of use. And the fact that he was ambulatory one second prior to me beginning to use his body has no bearing as long as he isnt physically active at the instant my projectiles impact him.
So you’re saying that, if I have bread in my refrigerator that I’m not currently eating, I’m therefore not using it, and therefore everyone else is entitled to take it out of my refrigerator so he can eat it?
You’re using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I’m currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.
So a meal kept in the refrigerator where one works is fair game?
Yep. It’s ironic that that’s one of the few things I disagreed with Rousseau (there being no property in state of nature), thought that Locke had the rational view, and I was thrilled to find Hoppes proof of it, it just turned out it wasn’t a proof.
I’m now confused.
If the bread is in ‘my’ fridge, someone else isn’t justified in taking the bread because I am using the fridge - - - using it because it is in ‘my’ house?
However if the bread is in a fridge at my work-syndicate, anyone can take the entire loaf(stated as a meal in my first example).
As far as I know in both scenarios I am still using the fridge, the only difference seems to be where the fridge is, and/or who has ‘ownership’ of the refrigerator.
So, in the first example, I own the fridge, and I am using it, thus no one can take the bread, on the other hand, as in the second example, I don’t own the fridge, and I am using it, thus any one can take the bread. To me this seems to affirm property.